Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leng (U.S. Pat. No. 11350740).
With respect to claim 1, Leng discloses a desk board component, comprising: a first desk board (Fig. 1, table board 21); a second desk board (storage board 11), arranged above the first desk board (table board 21), wherein the second desk board (storage board 11) comprises a mounting part (see Annotated Fig. 4 below, protruding rear lip of storage board 11) protruding further than an edge of the first desk board (see Annotated Fig. 4 below), the mounting part comprises a first bearing surface (upper, horizontally extending surface of protruding rear lip) capable of bearing at least a part of an object (an object may be placed on the upper, horizontally extending surface of the protruding rear lip), a mounting space defined on a side of the mounting part facing away from the first bearing surface (empty space directly below the protruding rear lip) is capable of accommodating a clamping mounting component and providing an operation space for mounting the clamping mounting component to the mounting part (protruding rear lip of storage board 11 has an open area above and below the planar storage board that is capable of supporting a clamping mounting component); and a connecting member (Fig. 1, folding frames 12), configured to connect the first desk board and the second desk board (table board 21 and storage board 11 are connected via folding frames 12).
PNG
media_image1.png
457
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4
With respect to claim 3, Leng further discloses a plurality of connecting members (Fig. 4, second swinging rods 122), which comprise two first connecting members separated from each other (left and right second swinging rods 122 are located on a left side and a right side of the table 20, respectively), wherein a storage space is defined between the first desk board, the second desk board and the two first connecting members (the open area between table board 21, storage board 11, and the left and right second swinging rods 122 may be used to store items).
With respect to claim 6, Leng further discloses wherein one end of each of the first connecting members connects to the first desk board (Figs. 1 and 4, bottom ends of left and right second swinging rods are connected to table board 21), another end of each of the first connecting members extends obliquely upward to connect to the second desk board (left and right second swinging rods 122 extend diagonally upwards, their upper ends connect to storage board 11), and at least a part of the first connecting member protrudes further than the edge of the first desk board (see Annotated Fig. 4 below, swinging rods 122 extend past the edge of table board 21).
PNG
media_image2.png
500
597
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4
Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barrett (U.S. Pub. No. 20070103040).
With respect to claim 1, Barrett discloses a desk board component, comprising: a first desk board (Fig. 2, lower countertop 120); a second desk board (upper countertop 112), arranged above the first desk board (lower countertop 120), wherein the second desk board (upper countertop 112) comprises a mounting part (front lip of upper countertop 112 as viewed in Fig. 1 with front panel 102 being the “front” of the desk 100) protruding further than an edge of the first desk board (Figs. 1 and 6 show front lip of upper countertop 112 protrudes further than the front edge of lower countertop 120), the mounting part comprises a first bearing surface (upper, horizontally extending face of front lip of upper countertop 112 that extends past front panel 102) capable of bearing at least a part of an object (an object may be placed on the upper, horizontally extending face of the front lip of upper countertop 112), a mounting space defined on a side of the mounting part facing away from the first bearing surface (empty space directly below the front lip of upper countertop 112 and in front of front panel 102) is capable of accommodating a clamping mounting component and providing an operation space for mounting the clamping mounting component to the mounting part (front lip of upper countertop 112 has an open area above and below the planar countertop that is capable of supporting a clamping mounting component); and a connecting member (front panel 102), configured to connect the first desk board and the second desk board (front panel 102 abuts an edge of lower countertop 120 and supports the bottom side of upper countertop 112).
With respect to claim 3, Barrett further discloses a plurality of connecting members (see Annotated Fig. 2 below, upper portions of left side panel 130 and right side panel 140), which comprise two first connecting members separated from each other (upper portions of left and right side panels 130 and 140 are separated by the length of front panel 102), wherein a storage space is defined between the first desk board, the second desk board and the two first connecting members (Fig. 2 shows a storage space defined by lower countertop 120, upper countertop 112, and upper portions of left and right side panels 130 and 140).
PNG
media_image3.png
635
827
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2
With respect to claim 5, Barrett further discloses wherein each of the first connecting members (upper portions of left and right side panels 130 and 140) is vertically arranged and located in a projection range of the first desk board (120) along the vertical direction (upper portions of left and right side panels 130 and 140 are situated on top of lower countertop 120 and extend vertically upward).
With respect to claim 9, Barrett further discloses wherein a distance that the mounting part (front lip of upper countertop 112) protrudes further than the edge of the first desk board (lower countertop 120) is less than or equal to
1
2
x S, and S is a length of the second desk board in a protruding direction of the mounting part (see Annotated Fig. 6 below, protruding distance of front lip of upper countertop 112 is less than half the length of upper countertop 112, the length is defined in the “protruding” direction extending in the same direction as the front lip).
PNG
media_image4.png
481
736
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 6
With respect to claim 10, Barrett further discloses wherein both of the first desk board (lower countertop 120) and the second desk board (upper countertop 112) are one of flat plate shaped and L-shaped (countertops 120 and 112 are both flat, plate-like rectangles).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrett (U.S. Pub. No. 20070103040) in view of Corbo (U.S. Pat. No. 10349739).
With respect to claim 2, Barrett discloses the limitation set forth above except wherein the mounting part further comprises a mounting hole running through in a vertical direction, and the mounting hole is capable of being penetrated by at least a part of the clamping mounting component, so that the clamping mounting component can be mounted on the mounting part.
Corbo discloses a mounting part (Fig. 2B, desktop surface 12) further comprises a mounting hole running through in a vertical direction (Fig. 2B shows bolt 28 of universal mount 10 extends vertically through a hole in desktop surface 12), and the mounting hole is capable of being penetrated by at least a part of the clamping mounting component (Col. 4, lines 27-28, “bolt 28 extending through a grommet hole in the desktop 12”), so that the clamping mounting component can be mounted on the mounting part (Fig. 2B shows universal mount 10 clamped onto the desktop surface 12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the front lip of the upper countertop of Barrett to include a grommet hole for mounting the universal mount such as taught by Corbo with a reasonable expectation of success in order to easily and securely attach an electronic device, such as a computer or security monitor, to the desk.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrett (U.S. Pub. No. 20070103040) in view of Blake (U.S. Pat. No. 4870630).
With respect to claim 4, Barrett discloses the limitation set forth above except a storage box with an opening facing toward the second desk board, wherein the storage box is capable of moving relative to the second desk board between a first position in which the storage box is accommodated in the storage space, and a second position in which the storage box is at least partially located outside the storage space.
Blake discloses a storage box (Fig. 1, drawer 9) with an opening facing toward the second desk board (Fig. 2 shows drawer 9 is open on top, the top opening would face the upper horizontal surface above the drawer 9), wherein the storage box (drawer 9) is capable of moving relative to the second desk board (upper horizontal surface above drawer 9) between a first position in which the storage box is accommodated in the storage space (Fig. 1 shows drawer 9 in a first, closed position), and a second position in which the storage box is at least partially located outside the storage space (using handle 10 to open drawer 9 would cause the drawer to extend beyond the storage space located between writing surface 3 and the upper horizontal surface above drawer 9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the desk of Barrett to include a drawer such as taught by Blake with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide easily accessible storage space on top of the lower countertop, and to further maintain organization of items commonly used at a desk such as office supplies or writing instruments.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrett (U.S. Pub. No. 20070103040) in view of Ooba (U.S. Pat. No. 7798070).
With respect to claim 7, Barrett discloses the limitation set forth above except wherein the second desk board has a predefined length, and in a length direction, from two ends of the second desk board to a middle position of the second desk board, a distance that the mounting part protrudes further than the edge of the first desk board gradually increases.
Ooba discloses wherein a second desk board (Fig. 1, auxiliary top 51) has a predefined length, and in a length direction, from two ends of the second desk board (left and right side edges of auxiliary top 51) to a middle position of the second desk board (outwardly-curved center of auxiliary top 51), a distance that the mounting part (lip of auxiliary table 51 that extends away from desk top 26) protrudes further than the edge of the first desk board gradually increases (lip of auxiliary top 51 curves outward at the center, making the front-to-back length of the auxiliary top 51 greater than the front-to-back length of the left and right side edges of the auxiliary top 51).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the upper countertop of Barrett to have an outward-curve shape such as taught by Ooba with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a more ergonomic desk top space for a user utilizing the upper countertop. It is further noted that a mere change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 IV(B).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrett (U.S. Pub. No. 20070103040) in view of Peek (U.S. Pat. No. 844616).
With respect to claim 8, Barrett discloses the limitation set forth above except wherein the second desk board further comprises a main body part provided with a second bearing surface, the mounting part is capable of moving relative to the main body part, and the mounting part has a first state defining the mounting space and a second state of being accommodated.
Peek discloses a desk board further comprises a main body part (table-top part A) provided with a second bearing surface (upper horizontally extending surface of table-top part A), a mounting part (table-top part D) is capable of moving relative to the main body part (table-top part D slides via grooves G), and the mounting part has a first state defining the mounting space and a second state of being accommodated (Col. 2, lines 96-101, “part D… is mounted to slide over the top of the lower portion of frame and then to rise to a level with part A”, therefore the first state defining the mounting space is the extended position as shown in Fig. 1, and the accommodated state is the stored state of Fig. 3 where part D is stored below part A).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the desk of Barrett by replacing the upper countertop with an extensible tabletop such as taught by Peek with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide more useable surface area for placing items on the countertop, and to further reduce the size of the countertop when additional space is not required or when situating the desk against a wall, allowing the desk to sit flush against the wall.
Claims 11, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrett (U.S. Pub. No. 20070103040) in view of Allen (U.S. Pat. No. 10758039).
With respect to claim 11, Barrett discloses a desk, comprising: a desk board component (assembly of lower countertop 120 and upper countertop 112) having: a first desk board (Fig. 2, lower countertop 120); a second desk board (upper countertop 112), arranged above the first desk board (lower countertop 120), wherein the second desk board (upper countertop 112) comprises a mounting part (front lip of upper countertop 112 as viewed in Fig. 1 with front panel 102 being the “front” of the desk 100) protruding further than an edge of the first desk board (Figs. 1 and 6 show front lip of upper countertop 112 protrudes further than the front edge of lower countertop 120), the mounting part comprises a first bearing surface (upper, horizontally extending face of front lip of upper countertop 112 that extends past front panel 102) capable of bearing at least a part of an object (an object may be placed on the upper, horizontally extending face of the front lip of upper countertop 112), a mounting space defined on a side of the mounting part facing away from the first bearing surface (empty space directly below the front lip of upper countertop 112 and in front of front panel 102) is capable of accommodating a clamping mounting component and provide an operation space for mounting the clamping mounting component to the mounting part (front lip of upper countertop 112 has an open area above and below the planar countertop that is capable of supporting a clamping mounting component); a connecting member (front panel 102), configured to connect the first desk board and the second desk board (front panel 102 abuts an edge of lower countertop 120 and supports the bottom side of upper countertop 112), and a desk leg system on which a desk board component its mounted (lower portions of left and right side panels 130 and 140 with wheels 150, 152, 154, 156 support lower countertop 120).
Barrett fails to disclose a height-adjustable desk leg system, on which the desk board component is mounted, wherein the height-adjustable desk leg system is configured to drive the desk board component to move in the vertical direction.
Allen discloses a height adjustable desk comprising: a height-adjustable desk leg system (Fig. 1, side panels 22 and 23 with leg assemblies 14a-14d), wherein the height-adjustable desk leg system (leg assemblies 14a-14d) is configured to drive the desk board component to move in the vertical direction (Figs. 1-3 show leg assemblies 14a-14d telescoping to move upper platform surface 12 vertically upward).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the side panels of Barrett by replacing the wheels with telescoping leg assemblies such as taught by Allen with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide users with various desk heights such as sitting height or standing height, and to further provide ergonomic comfort to the user of the desk.
With respect to claim 13, Barrett in view of Allen discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Barrett) further discloses a plurality of connecting members (see Annotated Fig. 2 below, upper portions of left side panel 130 and right side panel 140), which comprise two first connecting members separated from each other (upper portions of left and right side panels 130 and 140 are separated by the length of front panel 102), and a storage space is defined between the first desk board, the second desk board and the two first connecting members (Fig. 2 shows a storage space defined by lower countertop 120, upper countertop 112, and upper portions of left and right side panels 130 and 140).
With respect to claim 15, Barrett in view of Allen discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Barrett) further discloses wherein a distance that the mounting part (front lip of upper countertop 112) protrudes further than the edge of the first desk board (lower countertop 120) is less than or equal to
1
2
x S, and S is a length of the second desk board in a protruding direction of the mounting part (see Annotated Fig. 6 below, protruding distance of front lip of upper countertop 112 is less than half the length of upper countertop 112, the length is defined in the “protruding” direction extending in the same direction as the front lip).
PNG
media_image4.png
481
736
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 6
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrett (U.S. Pub. No. 20070103040) in view of Allen (U.S. Pat. No. 10758039) in further view of Corbo (U.S. Pub. No. 20180344025).
With respect to claim 12, Barrett in view of Allen discloses the limitation set forth above except wherein the mounting part further comprises a mounting hole running through in a vertical direction, and the mounting hole is capable of being penetrated by at least a part of the clamping mounting component, so that the clamping mounting component can be mounted on the mounting part.
Corbo discloses a mounting part (Fig. 2B, desktop surface 12) further comprises a mounting hole running through in a vertical direction (Fig. 2B shows bolt 28 of universal mount 10 extends vertically through a hole in desktop surface 12), and the mounting hole is capable of being penetrated by at least a part of the clamping mounting component (Col. 4, lines 27-28, “bolt 28 extending through a grommet hole in the desktop 12”), so that the clamping mounting component can be mounted on the mounting part (Fig. 2B shows universal mount 10 clamped onto the desktop surface 12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the front lip of the upper countertop of Barrett in view of Allen to include a grommet hole for mounting the universal mount such as taught by Corbo with a reasonable expectation of success in order to easily and securely attach an electronic device, such as a computer or security monitor, to the desk.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrett (U.S. Pub. No. 20070103040) in view of Allen (U.S. Pat. No. 10758039) in further view of Blake (U.S. Pat. No. 4870630).
With respect to claim 14, Barrett in view of Allen discloses the limitation set forth above except a storage box with an opening facing toward the second desk board, wherein the storage box is capable of moving relative to the second desk board between a first position in which the storage box is accommodated in the storage space, and a second position in which the storage box is at least partially located outside the storage space.
Blake discloses a storage box (Fig. 1, drawer 9) with an opening facing toward the second desk board (Fig. 2 shows drawer 9 is open on top, the top opening would face the upper horizontal surface above the drawer 9), wherein the storage box (drawer 9) is capable of moving relative to the second desk board (upper horizontal surface above drawer 9) between a first position in which the storage box is accommodated in the storage space (Fig. 1 shows drawer 9 in a first, closed position), and a second position in which the storage box is at least partially located outside the storage space (using handle 10 to open drawer 9 would cause the drawer to extend beyond the storage space located between writing surface 3 and the upper horizontal surface above drawer 9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the desk of Barrett in view of Allen to include a drawer such as taught by Blake with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide easily accessible storage space on top of the lower countertop, and to further maintain organization of items commonly used at a desk such as office supplies or writing instruments.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrett (U.S. Pub. No. 20070103040) in view of Corbo (U.S. Pat. No. 10349739) in further view of Allen (U.S. Pat. No. 10758039).
With respect to claim 16 Barrett discloses a desk system, comprising: a desk board component (assembly of lower countertop 120 and upper countertop 112) having: a first desk board (Fig. 2, lower countertop 120); a second desk board (upper countertop 112), arranged above the first desk board (lower countertop 120), wherein the second desk board (upper countertop 112) comprises a mounting part (front lip of upper countertop 112 as viewed in Fig. 1 with front panel 102 being the “front” of the desk 100) protruding further than an edge of the first desk board (Figs. 1 and 6 show front lip of upper countertop 112 protrudes further than the front edge of lower countertop 120), the mounting part comprises a first bearing surface (upper, horizontally extending face of front lip of upper countertop 112 that extends past front panel 102) capable of bearing at least a part of an object (an object may be placed on the upper, horizontally extending face of the front lip of upper countertop 112), a mounting space defined on a side of the mounting part facing away from the first bearing surface (empty space directly below the front lip of upper countertop 112 and in front of front panel 102) is capable of accommodating a clamping mounting component and provide an operation space for mounting the clamping mounting component to the mounting part (front lip of upper countertop 112 has an open area above and below the planar countertop that is capable of supporting a clamping mounting component); a connecting member (front panel 102), configured to connect the first desk board and the second desk board (front panel 102 abuts an edge of lower countertop 120 and supports the bottom side of upper countertop 112); and a desk leg system on which a desk board component its mounted (lower portions of left and right side panels 130 and 140 with wheels 150, 152, 154, 156 support lower countertop 120).
Barrett fails to disclose the clamping mounting component, detachably mounted on the mounting part; a bracket, connecting to the second desk board through the clamping mounting component and configured to connect an electrical device.
Corbo discloses a clamping mounting component (Fig. 2, universal mount 10) detachably mounted on the mounting part (Fig. 2B, edge of desktop surface 12); a bracket (mounting post MP), connecting to the second desk board (desktop surface 12) through the clamping mounting component (universal mount 10) and configured to connect an electrical device (Fig. 7 shows monitor mount attached to mounting post MP).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the front lip of the upper countertop of Barrett to include a universal mount such as taught by Corbo with a reasonable expectation of success in order to easily and securely attach an electronic device, such as a computer or security monitor, to the desk.
Barrett in view of Corbo fails to disclose a height-adjustable desk leg system, on which the desk board component is mounted, wherein the height-adjustable desk leg system is configured to drive the desk board component to move in the vertical direction.
Allen discloses a height adjustable desk comprising: a height-adjustable desk leg system (Fig. 1, side panels 22 and 23 with leg assemblies 14a-14d), wherein the height-adjustable desk leg system (leg assemblies 14a-14d) is configured to drive the desk board component to move in the vertical direction (Figs. 1-3 show leg assemblies 14a-14d telescoping to move upper platform surface 12 vertically upward).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the side panels of Barrett in view of Corbo by replacing the wheels with telescoping leg assemblies such as taught by Allen with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide users with various desk heights such as sitting height or standing height, and to further provide ergonomic comfort to the user of the desk.
With respect to claim 17, Barrett in view of Corbo in further view of Allen discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination further discloses wherein the clamping mounting component (Corbo, universal mount 10) comprises a rotary driving structure (Corbo, Fig. 2B, retention knob 46), a pressing member (Corbo, mounting plate 42) and an abutting member (Corbo, securement plate 32), at least a part of the abutting member (Corbo, securement plate 32) abuts against the first bearing surface (Barrett, upper horizontally extending face of front lip of upper countertop 112), the pressing member (Corbo, mounting plate 42) is located on the side of the mounting part facing away from the first bearing surface (Barrett, underside of front lip of upper countertop 112), and the rotary driving structure (Corbo, retention knob 46) connects to the abutting member to drive the pressing member to move close to the abutting member (Figs. 2A and 2B show retention knob connects to securement plate 32 via threaded bolt 28 and drives mounting plate 42 upward).
With respect to claim 18, Barrett in view of Corbo in further view of Allen discloses the limitation set forth above. Corbo further discloses wherein a mounting part (Fog. 2B, edge of desktop 12) comprises a mounting hole running through in a vertical direction (Fig. 2B shows bolt 28 of universal mount 10 extends vertically through a hole in desktop surface 12), and the mounting hole is capable of being penetrated by at least a part of the clamping mounting component (Col. 4, lines 27-28, “bolt 28 extending through a grommet hole in the desktop 12”), so that the clamping mounting component can be mounted on the mounting part (Fig. 2B shows universal mount 10 clamped onto the desktop surface 12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention when modifying the desk of Barrett to include the universal mount of Corbo such as taught in claim 16, to further include the grommet hole in the desktop in order to securely attach the universal mount to the upper countertop, and to further prevent unwanted removal of the universal mount.
With respect to claim 19, Barrett in view of Corbo in further view of Allen discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Barrett) further discloses a plurality of connecting members (see Annotated Fig. 2 below, upper portions of left side panel 130 and right side panel 140), which comprise two first connecting members separated from each other (upper portions of left and right side panels 130 and 140 are separated by the length of front panel 102), and a storage space is defined between the first desk board, the second desk board and the two first connecting members (Fig. 2 shows a storage space defined by lower countertop 120, upper countertop 112, and upper portions of left and right side panels 130 and 140).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrett (U.S. Pub. No. 20070103040) and Corbo (U.S. Pat. No. 10349739) in view of Allen (U.S. Pat. No. 10758039) in further view of Blake (U.S. Pat. No. 4870630).
With respect to claim 20, Barrett in view of Corbo in further view of Allen discloses the limitation set forth above except a storage box with an opening facing toward the second desk board, and the storage box is capable of moving relative to the second desk board between a first position in which the storage box is accommodated in the storage space, and a second position in which the storage box is at least partially located outside the storage space.
Blake discloses a storage box (Fig. 1, drawer 9) with an opening facing toward the second desk board (Fig. 2 shows drawer 9 is open on top, the top opening would face the upper horizontal surface above the drawer 9), wherein the storage box (drawer 9) is capable of moving relative to the second desk board (upper horizontal surface above drawer 9) between a first position in which the storage box is accommodated in the storage space (Fig. 1 shows drawer 9 in a first, closed position), and a second position in which the storage box is at least partially located outside the storage space (using handle 10 to open drawer 9 would cause the drawer to extend beyond the storage space located between writing surface 3 and the upper horizontal surface above drawer 9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the desk of Barrett in view of Corbo in further view of Allen to include a drawer such as taught by Blake with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide easily accessible storage space on top of the lower countertop, and to further maintain organization of items commonly used at a desk such as office supplies or writing instruments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
35 USC §102 Rejections - Leng (U.S. Pat. No. 11350740)
Regarding the 35 USC §102 rejection of independent claim 1, applicant argues that Leng fails to discloses “a mounting space defined on a side of the mounting part facing away from the first bearing surface is configured to accommodate a clamping mounting component and provide an operation space for mounting the clamping mounting component to the mounting part.” Applicant argues that 1) the space below the storage board 11 is not specifically designed for a special purpose (providing an operation space for a clamping mounting component) and 2) the protrusion of storage board 11 that extends beyond the rear edge of table board 21 is merely a structural byproduct of the hinged connection and has no predefined function (accommodating a clamping mounting component).
The Examiner notes that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art. See MPEP 2114(II). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
As mapped in the non-final rejection (1/12/2026) and in the final rejection above, Leng teaches the structural limitations of claim 1 including the second desk board (storage board 11) comprises a mounting part (protruding rear lip of storage board 11) protruding further than an edge of the first desk board (Fig. 4, protruding rear lip of storage board 11 protrudes further than the rear edge of table board 21), the mounting part comprises a first bearing surface (upper, horizontally extending surface of the protruding rear lip of storage board 11) configured to bear at least a part of an object (an object may be placed on the upper, horizontally extending surface of the protruding rear lip), a mounting space defined on a side of the mounting part facing away from the first bearing surface (the empty space below the protruding rear lip of storage board 11 faces downward, away from the first/upper surface of storage board 11) is configured to accommodate a clamping mounting component and provide an operation space for the mounting the clamping mounting component to the mounting part.
Claim 1 recites that the first bearing surface (211) of the mounting part (210) is configured to bear at least part of an object, and does not provide any further structural limitation that differentiates the claimed mounting part from Leng’s protruding rear lip of storage board 11. Applicant’s mounting part 210 is merely a protruding edge of a desk board and the bearing surface 211 is the upper surface/face of that desk board edge. Leng’s protruding rear lip is also the protruding edge of a desk board (storage board 11) with a bearing surface (upper surface/face of the storage board 11) that is configured to bear at least part of an object by virtue of being a flat horizontally extending board capable of holding an item above the floor. Claim 1 further recites that the mounting space is configured to accommodate a clamping mounting component and provide an operation space for the mounting the clamping mounting component to the mounting part. However, there is no structural limitation or dimension that defines this mounting space aside from existing beneath the mounting part 210. The mounting space 213, as shown in Figs. 1 and 3 is merely an open space provided underneath the mounting part 210. Leng’s mounting space (the empty space below the protruding rear lip of storage board 11) is an open space provided underneath the rear lip/storage board 11.
Further, the mounting clamp component itself is not claimed, but merely the mounting space’s ability to accommodate and provide space for a clamp component. Leng’s mounting space is configured to accommodate/provide space for a clamp mounting component by virtue of being an empty space formed beneath a desk board’s protruding edge. Therefore, Leng discloses the limitation of claim 1.
The examiner notes that neither in the Applicant’s remarks/arguments, nor in the Leng reference is the protruding rear lip of the storage board 11 indicated as being incapable of performing these functions. Overhanging edges of tables are clearly capable of accommodating various types of known clamping mounting components. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does, and there is no special technical feature or structure that differentiates the “mounting part” of the instant application from the protruding rear lip of the prior art.
Leng further teaches the limitations of depending claims 3 and 6 as mapped in the non-final rejection (1/12/2026) and in the final rejection above.
35 USC §102 Rejections - Barrett (U.S. Pub. No. 20070103040)
Regarding the 35 USC §102 rejection of independent claim 1, applicant argues that Barrett fails to discloses “a mounting space defined on a side of the mounting part facing away from the first bearing surface is configured to accommodate a clamping mounting component and provide an operation space for mounting the clamping mounting component to the mounting part.” Applicant argues that 1) the protrusion of the upper countertop 112 of Barrett beyond the front edge of the lower countertop 120 is a structural redundant design and 2) the design of the slight forward protrusion of the upper countertop 112 is for adapting to the contention and fixation of the front panel 102.
The Examiner further notes that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art. See MPEP 2114(II). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
As mapped in the non-final rejection (1/12/2026) and in the final rejection above, Barrett teaches the structural limitations of claim 1 including the second desk board (upper countertop 112) comprises a mounting part (protruding front lip of upper countertop 112 as viewed in Fig. 1 with front panel 102 being the “front” of the desk 100) protruding further than an edge of the first desk board (Figs. 1 and 6 show front lip of upper countertop 112 protrudes further than the front edge of lower countertop 120), the mounting part comprises a first bearing surface (upper, horizontally extending face of the protruding front lip of upper countertop 11) configured to bear at least a part of an object (an object may be placed on the upper, horizontally extending surface of the protruding front lip), a mounting space defined on a side of the mounting part facing away from the first bearing surface (the empty space below the protruding front lip of upper countertop 112 and in front of front panel 102) is configured to accommodate a clamping mounting component and provide an operation space for the mounting the clamping mounting component to the mounting part.
Claim 1 recites that the first bearing surface (211) of the mounting part (210) is configured to bear at least part of an object, and does not provide any further structural limitation that differentiates the claimed mounting part from Barrett’s protruding front lip of upper countertop 112. Applicant’s mounting part 210 is merely a protruding edge of a desk board and the bearing surface 211 is the upper surface/face of that desk board edge. Barrett’s protruding front lip is also the protruding edge of a desk board (upper countertop 112 with a bearing surface (upper surface/face of the upper countertop 112) that is configured to bear at least part of an object by virtue of being a flat horizontally extending board capable of holding an item above the floor. Claim 1 further recites that the mounting space is configured to accommodate a clamping mounting component and provide an operation space for the mounting the clamping mounting component to the mounting part. However, there is no structural limitation or dimension that defines this mounting space aside from existing beneath the mounting part 210. The mounting space 213, as shown in Figs. 1 and 3 is merely an open space provided underneath the mounting part 210. Barrett’s mounting space (the empty space below the protruding front lip of upper countertop 112) is an open space provided underneath the front lip and in front of front panel 102. Further, the mounting clamp component itself is not claimed, but merely the mounting space’s ability to accommodate and provide space for a clamp component. Barrett’s mounting space is configured to accommodate/provide space for a clamp mounting component by virtue of being an empty space formed beneath a desk board’s protruding edge. Therefore, Barrett discloses the limitation of Claim 1.
The protruding front lip of upper countertop 112 being a “structurally redundant design… for adapting to the connection and fixation of the front panel 102” as argued by the applicant, does not preclude the protruding front lip from being capable of bearing an object and defining a mounting space for accommodating/providing space for a clamp mounting component. The examiner notes that neither in the Applicant’s remarks/arguments, nor in the Barrett reference is the protruding front lip of the upper countertop indicated as being incapable of performing these functions. Overhanging edges of tables are clearly capable of accommodating various types of known clamping mounting components. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does, and there is no special technical feature or structure that differentiates the “mounting part” of the instant application from the protruding rear lip of the prior art.
Barrett further teaches the limitations of depending claims 3, 5, 9, and 10 as mapped in the non-final rejection (1/12/2026) and in the final rejection above.
Barrett in view of Corbo (U.S. Pat. No. 10349739) teaches the limitation of depending claim 2 as mapped in the non-final rejection (1/12/2026) and in the final rejection above.
Barrett in view of Blake (U.S. Pat. No. 4870630) teaches the limitation of depending claim 4 as mapped in the non-final rejection (1/12/2026) and in the final rejection above.
Barrett in view of Ooba (U.S. Pat. No. 7798070) teaches the limitation of depending claim 7 as mapped in the non-final rejection (1/12/2026) and in the final rejection above.
Barrett in view of Peek (U.S. Pat. No. 844616) teaches the limitation of depending claim 8 as mapped in the non-final rejection (1/12/2026) and in the final rejection above.
35 USC §103 Rejections - Barrett (U.S. Pub. No. 20070103040) in view of Allen (U.S. Pat. No. 10758039)
Regarding the 35 USC §103 rejection of independent claim 11, Applicant’s arguments related to the Barrett reference are similar to those of the claim 1 rejection with emphasis on the protruding front lip of upper countertop 112 and the empty space below the protruding front lip being a “structural[ly] redundant” design that is the result of “aesthetic covering, structural protection and/or tolerance accommodation” and Barrett does not teach the protruding front lip “is intended to serve as a mounting part for a clamping component, nor does it state that the space thereunder is designed as a mounting space including an operation area for the user’s hand.” (Pages 19-20).
As stated in the response to arguments regarding claim 1, the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art. See MPEP 2114(II). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Further, by Applicant’s own admission, it is ordinary and common for a top plate to be slightly larger in size than the frame enclosed by side plates for aesthetic covering, structural protection and/or tolerance accommodation, which results in a protruding edge/lip. While Barrett does not explicitly disclose the function of this lip, Barrett’s disclosure that “the upper countertop 112 may or may not extend over the top edges of these panels” indicates that one of ordinary skill in the art may choose to include the extending top edge based on preference or the advantageous functions of the lip such as aesthetic covering, structural protection, or placement/attachment of auxiliary items.
Further, Barrett’s protruding front lip, regardless of the reason for including it in the design, is capable of bearing an object and defining a mounting space for accommodating/providing space for a clamp mounting component as explained above. The examiner notes that neither in the Applicant’s remarks/arguments, nor in the Barrett reference is the protruding front lip of the upper countertop indicated as being incapable of performing these functions. Overhanging edges of tables are clearly capable of accommodating various types of known clamping mounting components. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does, and there is no special technical feature or structure that differentiates the “mounting part” of the instant application from the protruding rear lip of the prior art.
Applicant further cites (pages 21-22) MPEP 2144.03, arguing that if a structural feature is deeply integrated with a specific function and yields a new technical effect, it falls outside the scope of what properly constitutes common knowledge. Applicant argues that the “mounting part” as recited in claims 1 and 11 are inherently distinct because 1) the protrusion of the mounting part is functionally necessary as opposed to protrusions within the scope of common knowledge and general-purpose designs, and 2) protrusions in the scope of common know left have no relationship with mounting functions, whereas the protrusion of the claimed invention determines the size of the mounting space which accommodates the clamping component and provides operation space for the user. Examiner disagrees.
Examiner notes that 1) the mounting part of the instant application being a necessity to form the mounting space does not preclude the protruding front lip of Barrett (or protruding edges of “common knowledge and general purpose designs”) from also forming a mounting space thereunder, and 2) the protruding front lip of Barrett (or protruding edges of “common knowledge and general purpose designs”) does inherently determine the size and usability of the space beneath by virtue of being a three-dimensional object extending beyond another object, such as the front panel 102. Moreover, claim 11 fails to include any structural limitations relating to the size required for operating the clamping mounting component.
On page 23, Applicant argues that “mounting a clamping mounting component on the protruding portion of Barrett would damage the functionality of the flat forward-protruding area as an operation tabletop for material feeding, which is contrary to the original intention of Barrett. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not conceive of using the protruding portion of Barrett as a mounting part to accommodate a clamping mounting component.” Examiner disagrees. Mounting a known clamping mounting component would not in any way damage the functionality of the protruding front lip of upper countertop 112. The clamping mounting component can be mounted at a right side of the desk, allowing complete access to the rest of the countertop including the “material feeding” receiving slot 114. Additionally, the desk of Barrett is disclosed as having a variety of uses such as “a main entrance check-in station, school safety and security station, hall monitor station, sporting event admissions booth, sporting event scorer's table, concession stand, ticket sales booth, corporate display booth, or general purpose utility station” (Paragraph 0014). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to use an edge of the upper countertop for clamping an object, for example a computer mounting clamp, to mount a computer monitor for looking up parent/student information at a school, scanning or selling tickets at a ticket sales booth, providing security monitors to security officers, etc.
On pages 23-24, Applicant further states that the purpose of the mounting part of the instant application is to define a mounting space for clamping a mounting component and allowing a user’s hand to extend into the mounting space to adjust the clamping components. Examiner again notes that claim 11 does not include the clamping mounting component and does not claim any particular structure or dimensions required for allowing a clamping mounting component to be mounted onto the mounting part, or for a user’s hand to be accommodated in the mounting space. Mounting components and user’s hands come in varying shapes and sizes, therefore a mounting part configured to accommodate/provide operation space for a clamping mounting component may vary depending on the component or the user.
Lastly, Applicant argues that Allen (U.S. Pat. No. 10758039), which teaches a height adjustable leg systems, does not teach the mounting part as claimed. Examiner agrees that Allen does not teach the mounting part. Barrett teaches the mounting part and Allen teaches the height adjustable leg system, therefore Barrett in view of Allen discloses the limitation of independent claim 11.
Barrett in view of Allen further teaches the limitations of depending claims 13 and 15 as mapped in the non-final rejection (1/12/2026) and in the final rejection above.
Barrett in view of Allen in further view of Corbo (U.S. Pat. No. 10349739) teaches the limitation of depending claim 12 as mapped in the non-final rejection (1/12/2026) and in the final rejection above.
Barrett in view of Allen in further view of Blake (U.S. Pat. No. 4870630) teaches the limitation of depending claim 14 as mapped in the non-final rejection (1/12/2026) and in the final rejection above.
35 USC §103 Rejections - Barrett (U.S. Pub. No. 20070103040) in view of Corbo (U.S. Pat. No. 10349739) in further view of Allen (U.S. Pat. No. 10758039).
Regarding the 35 USC §103 rejection of independent claim 16, Applicant’s arguments related to the Barrett reference are similar to those of independent claims 1 and 11. Neither Corbo nor Allen teaches a mounting part as claimed, however Barrett does teach the mounting part as explained above. Therefore, Barrett in view of Corbo in further view of Allen discloses the limitation of independent claim 16.
Barrett in view of Corbo in further view of Allen further teaches the limitations of depending claims 17-19 as mapped in the non-final rejection (1/12/2026) and in the final rejection above.
Barrett and Corbo in view of Allen in further view of Blake (U.S. Pat. No. 4870630) teaches the limitation of depending claim 20 as mapped in the non-final rejection (1/12/2026) and in the final rejection above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH IRENE ARTALEJO whose telephone number is (571)272-4292. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel Troy can be reached at (571) 270-3742. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/E.I.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3637 /DANIEL J TROY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights